| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I honestly don´t have any problem with occult spell list for necromancer. IMO the occult concept always make sense for spellcasters that deal with unlife without deities interventions.
That said I have no problem with other traditions dealing with undeads except from primal that honestly makes no sense to deal with creation and control of undeads.
Also I don´t expect that designers will do a tradition only subclass or link the currently necromancer subclasses (that's basically allows to player choose between bones,flesh o spiritual undeads) to traditions. PF2e traditions subclasses was always linked to some theme. Sorcerers traditions are linked do bloodlines, witches to their patrons and summoners to their eidolons. To make necromancers to choose their traditions they need an theme to justify that their powers are from different sources than other necromancers not only a "I choose to be arcane" like as they choose an ice cream flavor.
The currently thematic of this necromancer are characters that deal with undeads and void and sometimes vitality energies without enter into divine scope of follow a deity like clerics or be overwhelmed by divine power like oracles or heritage it like divine sorcerers. This doesn´t fit well primal tradition and even arcane (due vitality). Divine could be an option but they will need to study and steal the divine essence to create and control undeads. The occult is just more simple to deal with all this.
Also we never saw the designers changes their concepts due players complains here in forum or in reddit. Expect that you will be just ignored or the designers answering that he doesn´t like the idea for the character concept that he is creating.
|
| 9 people marked this as a favorite. |
My two cents then I'll leave. I respectfully disagree. Occult works with Necromancer theme and has most of what the Necromancer would want as has been thoroughly discussed and debated in another thread (frankly to an exhausting level).
The gaps we see in the Necromancer's toolkit, I thoroughly believe, will be filled in the book that Necromancer comes out in by no doubt adding additional on theme spells.
My breakdown:
Divine: No, as this is barrowing or being given power by a greater being. I don't like this concept for Necromancer as the Necromancer seems to me to be the concept of rigorous research and development to impact their own destiny and not rely on another entity
Primal: Nothing to do with Necromancy as a rule
Arcane: possibly, but it is more of a wide tradition and at a personal level I think Occult simply jives with the Necromancer theme better
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
In another world, I think most spellcasters should be pick a tradition unless there's some extremely compelling reason not to allow it.
But given that Paizo puts a lot of value on nailing certain classes to certain traditions Occult is really the best choice here.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
To me primal is just a way more interesting and fitting tradition for necromancy than occult - creating primitive mindless skeletal thralls feels way more fitting to a tradition focused on manipulating matter and life, than one focused on manipulating mind and spirit. But I think every tradition can make a good argument for their specific version of necromancy being represented if you have some imagination and creativity.
As long as their aren't any big mechanical balancing concerns, I just find it kinda sad to limit player options and make many cool concepts unplayable without homebrew. And as I said, it's not like I want paizo to overhaul the class completely and make something new that has nothing to do with playtest necromancer, just adding a single sentence would basically solve all my problems.
Just like arcane was made avoiding healing spells, primal was made with the concept of avoid unlife spell. It's the most unlikely tradition for necromancy.
Again. I'm not against a multi-tradition necromancer. I just don´t believe that the designers will go through this way.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Primal tradition keeps the best elemental energy type damage spell in its list making then an best alternative to players that wants to blast and have healing spells. In my experience I saw more players switching Arcane in favor to Prime specially due its access to both heal and strong damage spells.
A primal necromancer will mean access to pure healing spell, pure elemental spells like fireballs and lightning but not to Create Undeads. I really don´t expect a primal necromancer.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
To me the difference is that arcane not having healing spells is a big balancing factor to nerf an already incredibly versatile spell list, while I don't see a druid or primal sorcerer getting a noticeable mechanical advantage from getting necromancy spells on the primal list. And even then, nothing stops an arcane witch from picking up the life boost spell, so I don't see how thats that different compared to a primal caster getting necromancy powers through class abilities.I find the concept of a primal necromancer so exciting specifically because it plays against the stereotypes associated with primal castersband yet works imo really well thematically. Ofc I don't have big hope that paizo will agree with me here, but it can never hurt to try. And maybe at least something like a class archetype could be possible in the future...
Despite my arguing in another thread in defense of occult, I actually strongly agree with you that primal would have been pretty cool. It SHOULD have access to void, IMO. Druids shouldn't, I'm okay with that, but I think primal casting itself should. Or at least there should be a way for some primal caster to spec into it with a class archetype or just an archetype. The access ability that AestheticDialetic wrote here would work really well with a primal caster, probably even better than his proposal to add it to occult, since the number of concepts you could suddenly play would be so much greater.
I'm fine with occult as the only choice, but I'll definitely admit you make some compelling points. I would even give up my opposition to healing necromancy if it was done via primal magic instead of divine.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
In another world, I think most spellcasters should be pick a tradition unless there's some extremely compelling reason not to allow it.
But given that Paizo puts a lot of value on nailing certain classes to certain traditions Occult is really the best choice here.
I’m finding more and more that I dislike the four traditions and the thematic delineations that they necessarily attempt to shoehorn - and the fact that classes do get…nailed to certain traditions. It seems incredibly limiting conceptually, and I wonder at the efficacy of any mechanical reasoning for it.
I do also wonder if, for the Necromancer, Occult is the “best choice” or merely a “strong choice”, given that there seem to be a lot of personal opinions floating about for the application of each tradition. A primal Necromancer would be, to excuse the pun, wild. Or, just a reflavored Druid. ;p
| 11 people marked this as a favorite. |
In general, I would prefer it when magic classes have a specific tie to a magic tradition because that helps inform something about what that tradition is like. If there's a compelling reason to make the class "pick a list" then you can do it, but while I see it for the Witch, Summoner, and the Sorcerer (i.e. "the source of your power could be from a wide range of different things") I just don't see it here.
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
Big fan of the four traditions as I am, I am also firmly against pick-a-tradition classes without *deep* reasons for it. I can see Occult fitting the Necromancer decently well, but would sooner drop slotted casting as a whole than try to fit primal or divine casting onto the chassis.
Primal would 100% be the wrong choice, and divine has way too many options that warp the flavor of the class.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Like if you want to reskin the necromancer to be "a different sort of disposable minion" character that feels like something you could do with a class archetype.
Like something like "a primal necromancer who leverages the necrotic forces in natural decay and summons disposable fungus thralls" would be a fun class archetype but a bad thing to just build into the class itself.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Occult is the best choice with the exception of maybe Arcane.
Divine draws power from a “divine” source. While it does have perhaps the best setup theoretically - being body and spirit, and an almost monopoly on the vitality/void/spirit damage types, it’s not really all that good for it when you look at it from a lore perspective. Necromancers gain power from their dirge, and are more similar to bards in their power source than for instance Clerics.
Primal is a complete no go. The primal list draws off of nature and natural things. Undead aren’t natural. Urgathoa alone shows that being undead in and of itself is a perversion of the natural order.
Arcane is probably the second best. But my issue with Arcane is that when it comes down to it, it’s a massive and versatile list that if we look at it, Arcane could fit every caster class that isn’t a divine caster and it would still largely work. Arcane to me seems like the biggest reason that the wizards core chassis is weak. They get so much power just from that spell list.
Occult, from a lore perspective, is perhaps not the best. It’s the mystery spell list, and paizo went out of their way to differentiate phantoms from undead. But occult has a wide and flavorful list that works extremely well for the Necromancer. It isn’t entirely devoid of spirit damage, and it’s sort of the spooky list.
Necromancers should be occult.
|
|
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
I can totally understand why people who want the occult spell list are voicing their opinions, but why would anyone try to shut down others from having the option to choose between the two lists? If you don't like divine spells, then just choose to play occult.
You're right. While on the topic, I think my Fighter should have the choice to trade weapon expertise for Sneak Attack. Rage, or Exploit Vulnerability. Don't limit my choices!
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't know how I feel about turning necromancer into a pick-a-tradition class, but I am (perhaps foolishly) holding out hope for some kind of primal class archetype that has you animating plant mass or spore servants. I think class archetypes would allow the fantasy of a primal, divine or arcane necromancer better than just going "oh you can cast these spells now".
There is precedent for classes getting a class archetype in their own book (Spellshot and Gunslinger), so I'm not crazy!
I also like the class archetype approach for different traditions of spell casting, just flavor aspects of the thralls and energy damages and your good to go.
Primal- fungus/ withered wood. does poison damage instead of void.
arcane- constructs, does 1 selected energy instead of void.
divine- imps/cherubs, does sanctified or spirit damage instead of void
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think the best solution would be to say Necromancers are Occult Casters but with the ability to learn any spell with the following rules.
- Vitality Trait
- Void Trait
- Effects Undead in some way in it's description
- Deals Spirit Damage.
No matter what it will be messy and might require Paizo/PFS to make a Necromantic okay spell-list or perhaps rely on your GM to allow you to steal spells. Perhaps instead of being a Tradition they literally are in an earlier post be a Traditionless cast who just steals spells that fit the Necromancer theme which gets approved by PFS or your GM, so no Fireball but heal, sure why not.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
In another world, I think most spellcasters should be pick a tradition unless there's some extremely compelling reason not to allow it.
But given that Paizo puts a lot of value on nailing certain classes to certain traditions Occult is really the best choice here.
I’m finding more and more that I dislike the four traditions and the thematic delineations that they necessarily attempt to shoehorn - and the fact that classes do get…nailed to certain traditions. It seems incredibly limiting conceptually, and I wonder at the efficacy of any mechanical reasoning for it.
I do also wonder if, for the Necromancer, Occult is the “best choice” or merely a “strong choice”, given that there seem to be a lot of personal opinions floating about for the application of each tradition. A primal Necromancer would be, to excuse the pun, wild. Or, just a reflavored Druid. ;p
PF2e traditions in practice was a design decision that Paizo designers made in order to solve the madness that is D&D and PF1e where each class has its own spell list that creates a big design problem with spells where each time a new magical class was created a entire new list needed to be made along with it and each time a new spell was created this spell needs to retroactively be decided to what classes spell list it also need to be added.
So the designers decided instead to separate them into 4 opposite traditions, arcane - divine and occult - primal. With each one representing their sources:
Primal representing the magic that comes from nature where the positive plane creation forge, elemental planes, first world energies are their main sources.
Occult representing the unknown magic, supernatural forces and the most obscure and less know parts of the magic where you don´t fully knows or control where it comes, why it comes and what fully dangerous and wondrous are their sources.
Divine representing the magic that comes from the gods and great beyond where the alignment (un)holiness, creation and destruction reigns.
Arcane that represents the most mage and mathematical aspects of magic representing the understand and the studies of the pure magic and how it affect and are affected by the world.
These traditions are not really to fully developed to fulfill the entire metaphysical behind of magic instead they was adaptations of wizards (arcane), cleric (divine), druid (primal) and bard (occult) spell lists to a more general and easier to maintain spell list system. That's why they are a bit confuse sometimes because they was an adaptation to solve a problem and not a fully created from scratch system to well divide the spells in the game. Even the fact that the occult are "opposed" to primal basically only exists because the divine tradition was already opposed to arcane from D&D concepts.
Anyway focusing in occult tradition it was not only a tradition made to fit the new full caster bard spell list but also to encompass all the supernatural aspects of the magic and their more obscure and controversy aspects like mind and soul control and psychic spells and this was what made it fit better for necromancer.
Necromancer's studies of the dead, undead and souls are way more are way more oriented to this most hidden and not fully know aspect of the magic that occult tradition gives also because the necromancers are not so scholars like wizards usually focusing more in how the non-life magic could be useful for them then in focusing into how it works like is the more focus of arcane tradition. They are more likely to use strange ritual and unspeakable pacts like hags does focused in their final objetives than instead of ways that they will use.
That's why the occult fit better the necromancer than other traditions. It's not like we don´t have wizards that can summon undeads but their usually are more focused in their studies of the magic than in how to control undeads or Urgathoa's clerics that uses their goddess favor in order give the unlife to the world to fulfill their deity and their own unholy objectives. The necromancers itself are more focused in the own undead than in the magic behind it or some unholy faith.
Like if you want to reskin the necromancer to be "a different sort of disposable minion" character that feels like something you could do with a class archetype.
Like something like "a primal necromancer who leverages the necrotic forces in natural decay and summons disposable fungus thralls" would be a fun class archetype but a bad thing to just build into the class itself.
I agree. I can't see fungus thralls (like those from BG3) as a truly undead. They are parasites that can control corpses like Yellow Musk Creepers do not a void based undeads.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I can totally understand why people who want the occult spell list are voicing their opinions, but why would anyone try to shut down others from having the option to choose between the two lists? If you don't like divine spells, then just choose to play occult.
Because unfortunately we have an space limit in the books and turn a class more versatile also usually means that it will be more restricted in their specialized options.
It's like sorcerer's evolution feats you have specific feats for specific traditions because not all them make sense to work in every tradition. This means that once that you choose an tradition your feat options will be restricted a bit. OK, the designers can also make the feats more generalist but this starts to go against the idea of have a specialist caster like necromancer.
PF2e traditions in practice was a design decision that Paizo designers made in order to solve the madness that is D&D and PF1e where each class has its own spell listI think you are being a bit hyperbolic. We already have classes that include extra spells, such as sorcerer bloodline spells, wizard school spells, animist apparition spells, and oracle mystery spells, among others. Perhaps we could focus on the three necromancer sub-types—bone, muscle, and spirit—and assign them some fixed spells, with the usual caveat of consulting the GM to add appropriate spells as needed. I don’t understand the significant fuss about traditions when it’s clear that Paizo is consistently supplementing the gaps in the four traditions' spell lists.
No I'm not. It's different to get a dozen of extra spells than an entire spell list. Including IMO this is a strange band-aid that gives an incomplete "fix" with some bugged gimmicks like some curriculum spells that becomes useless as you progress or deities' cleric spells that only have 3 spells and are far from fulfill the entire aspect of most deities making their clerics holy/unholy|vitality/void generalists instead of fully magical representatives of their deities powers in the universe.
We can't simply compared some extra spells that sometimes gives some extra-tradition spells with entire spell lists with hundred of spells.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
of all casters, why would necromancer be pick-a-list? the three pick-a-list classes we do have (sorcerer, witch, summoner) are that way because the source of magic can vary wildly in its nature (inherited bloodline, pact with a powerful entity, summoned extraplanar entity). Necromancer does not have this variety of sources (it's just undead, you summon spooky gross corpses) and forcing pick-a-list makes as much sense on it as it would on wizard or an oracle. yeah you can kinda ramshackle a justification, but it doesn't feel natural for the class.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think, given the break from the OGL, it might be valuable to Paizo to specifically underline how "no Necromancy is not a specialization of Wizardry in our setting."
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Because unfortunately we have an space limit in the books and turn a class more versatile also usually means that it will be more restricted in their specialized options.That is such a corporate mindset to have. Classes can only be made once; they can be supplemented later, but fixing the core is much harder. If they are so constrained by page space, then perhaps releasing two at a time isn't the best idea. Additionally, was it ever confirmed that they consider list selection under balance? It's not as if you can switch between spell lists once chosen, so I will need some evidence for that.
IIRC, the reason we only ever get two classes now in supplement books as opposed to four like the APG is specifically because of page space. The Kineticist is an outlier because of the Impulses.
I also don't know what to tell you in that, yeah, they sometimes make decisions for business/corporate/cost reasons and in publishing page space is like the number one concern because pages equal cost.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I can totally understand why people who want the occult spell list are voicing their opinions, but why would anyone try to shut down others from having the option to choose between the two lists? If you don't like divine spells, then just choose to play occult.
Another factor is that Paizo seems to view 'pick from multiple spell lists' as a factor in the 'power budget' of a class. Which would mean that if the Necromancer got a choice between multiple lists the classes other abilities would likely be more conservatively powered to compensate.
We already went through this with the Witch, which resulted in one of the lowest-powered casters in the game (I've heard the remaster helped give it many improved features, but that was only after years of disappointment.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think this would be better served as a class archetype, especially for concepts like the primal mold necromancer.
That way the necromancer remains true to itself, isn't watered down to accommodate the versatility of pick-a-list, and everyone gets what they want.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
But classes are the crown jewels of the game; they are the shiny new toys that people play with when they first join. Surely, they would sell more books by dedicating them to a single class. I can understand compromising and cutting corners, but that is one area where you really need to shine."IIRC, the reason we only ever get two classes now in supplement books as opposed to four like the APG is specifically because of page space. The Kineticist is an outlier because of the Impulses.
I also don't know what to tell you in that, yeah, they sometimes make decisions for business/corporate/cost reasons and in publishing page space is like the number one concern because pages equal cost.
Sure - but playtesting four classes vs. two and having it result in the same amount of good data requires longer playtests and more runway, which if I remember, was one of the reasons why the APG classes had such disjointed final versions.
They've found a good spot with two classes per book, and I don't think they should change it, in my opinion.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
PF2e traditions in practice was a design decision that Paizo designers made in order to solve the madness that is D&D and PF1e where each class has its own spell listI think you are being a bit hyperbolic. We already have classes that include extra spells, such as sorcerer bloodline spells, wizard school spells, animist apparition spells, and oracle mystery spells, among others. Perhaps we could focus on the three necromancer sub-types—bone, muscle, and spirit—and assign them some fixed spells, with the usual caveat of consulting the GM to add appropriate spells as needed. I don’t understand the significant fuss about traditions when it’s clear that Paizo is consistently supplementing the gaps in the four traditions' spell lists.
That would be reasonable enough, it's the "toss all the vital and void and spirit spells in the game" want in the other thread that I objected to. It's one thing to get a flavorful and limited infusion of off-tradition spells; it's quite another to get every written and to be written spell of those traits. One is just that, flavor. The other is breaking the point of the traditions in the first place.
Arguably, having a spell system where every spell is in a trait group and your class gives you access to entire traits instead of traditions might be interesting, but that's not the system we have now.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Regarding primal necromancy, I personally wasn't advocating for fungi necro and those tropes. No objection to them, but I was thinking standard undead, just using the primal spell list. That they currently don't line up is part of the appeal to me, that would allow this specific class a limited ability to combine those themes while still leaving the primal tradition itself mostly untouched (I say mostly because I do want at least a couple primal void spells), since most of how they'd use those themes would be with their focus spells.
But I just realized we may well see something like that soon, maybe very soon. That seems like a good fit for backmatter in one of the spore war adventures. Well, not a class archetype of course, but maybe some feats or an archetype.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I imagine a primal necro would be throwing elemental skeletons at dudes
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
As a GM who has had to play a few necromancer villains (both the wizard school and not), I found it a recurring source of frustration when designing their spell lists (or casting from pre-written statblocks) that I would often have to reach for spells that felt quite badly off-theme just to have some semblance of diversity (esp. since my Carrion Crown party included two monks and a champion, all with killer Fortitude).
For me, by far the worst offender for spells that felt off-theme were having a wizardly necromancers busting out a lightning bolt or fireball. The clerics of Urgathoa didn't suffer so badly just because a divine smite from a follower of the goddess of undeath is basically undead-adjacent, to say nothing of their spirit-themed spells, but at the time it was annoying to choose between "This character is intelligent and should prepare a variety of tools for the situations they face" and actually making them feel like a undeath cultist necromancer when they're busting out generic wizard mainstays because there's only so many times they can prepare Vampiric Exsanguination and Grim Tendrils.
For this reason, the Arcane and Primal feel furthest from the Necromancer to me. I'm not entirely against the idea that the Necromancer could embody a different style of necromancy with any of the four traditions, but also neither do I think it makes much sense or adds much to the Necromancer. Each of the previous Pick-a-List casters feel like they had it for a reason (and I was on the front lines arguing for Pick-a-List Witch, so I'm not arbitrarily against list-picking) and I don't quite feel it's the same for Necromancer.
Granted, neither am I married to the Occult list beyond "if they have to cast some spells, I suppose it makes the most sense". Fair enough said that the divine list seems to master Life and Death above any--and if it weren't for the elemental spells I already decried, making an argument for 'cycle of life and death' being another one of the Primal cycles could actually be really appealing to me...
In short, a Necromancer who has elemental spells has always felt like they had to take a minor outside of their preferred field so that they could still get a job if this gig didn't work out.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I do think the three current subclasses would have easily allowed different traditions, for sure: the Bone Shaper could be divine, the Flesh Magician could be primal, and the Spirit Monger could be occult. In general, I do think the focus on vital essence could have easily allowed a divine/primal caster, just as the Psychic's focus on mental essence could have allowed them to be an arcane/occult caster. I can understand why this wasn't done, because primal's really hard to work with (in particular, and as AnimatedPaper mentions, it has some of the worst access to void spells across all traditions), and we have enough divine casters as-is, but I do think there's plenty of thematic justification for a necromancer that wields the magic of nature (or, rather, perverts it to suit their own ends), or the spheres beyond our Universe (by reversing the journey of souls and pulling them back from beyond into undead thralls through void magic). In my opinion, the fantasy of a necromancer who infests and animates zombies with fungi and vermin, or that of a Devil Forgemaster-type necromancer who can pull souls from their designated afterlife and put them back in decaying mortal bodies, both deserve to be part of the "core" fantasy of the necromancer, rather than something secondary and accessible only via archetyping next to our current mentalist necromancer who summons thralls and then tells you a really good joke, or forces you to dance.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Next to our current mentalist necromancer who summons thralls and then tells you a really good joke, or forces you to dance.
I mean, I get what you're saying, but that latter one does already exist as a concept. The boneman forcing people into uncontrollable dancing is very much already thing.
Next to our current mentalist necromancer who summons thralls and then tells you a really good joke, or forces you to dance.I mean, I get what you're saying, but that latter one does already exist as a concept. The boneman forcing people into uncontrollable dancing is very much already thing.
Yeah - the overlap here brings me back to the initial PF2 playtest and my feeling that occult worked well for Bards. Mundane music "makes" people move, and mundane stories "make" people see things. Extending those to the supernatural gets you compulsions, necromancy, and illusions. Mentalist necromancer is a lot less jarring than one chucking a fireball because "making the dead do things" has plenty of overlap with "making the living do things". I've actually seen a fictional necromancer use something like Laughing Fit before using laughing skulls that- rather than force someone to join in, they made them unreasonably angry at the mockery, but still very much an emotion effect.
I know the post was about the other options existing alongside occult, not actually saying mentalist stuff doesn't work. I'd love to get a fungal zombie option, but I'm firmly agreed that it needs its own special treatment. Pathfinder's lore post Book of the Dead doesn't leave as much room for fungal undead stuff. Which is to say, even if it cuts down on the odds of ever getting it, I'd want it as a class archetype with its own mechanics and some extra explanation. The devil forge master idea... works a lot better with occult to me? I know devils are divine, as are their summoning, but so much of what devils do is mental in nature that I always find myself wanting occult or arcane for a related character.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The devil forge master idea... works a lot better with occult to me? I know devils are divine, as are their summoning, but so much of what devils do is mental in nature that I always find myself wanting occult or arcane for a related character.
Devil forgemasters come from the Castlevania franchise, and in the animated series they're humans who pull souls from Hell and place them into monstrous bodies made from corpses. Although that particular character fantasy may be specific to a setting, the general idea of using necromancy to pull souls out from the afterlife and force them back into the mortal world is far more common, and hinges on both component essences of the divine tradition while often being framed as divine itself.
I think it is also worth noting that while the Danse Macabre is indeed an existing concept in medieval European folklore, there is no such representation in the world of Golarion besides a 1e encounter, and the traditions assigned necromancy spells up until now in 2e were the arcane and divine traditions, not the occult. The Danse Macabre is also not some mortal raising the dead or making the living dance, like the Pied Piper of Hamelin -- it is quite literally the dance of death, with its personification leading the dead and the living, across all walks of society, into a dance symbolizing the inevitable end of all people. It has strictly nothing to do with necromancy as conceptualized now or bringing the dead back to life, quite the opposite: the entire point of the Danse Macabre is that we all die, and that kings and paupers alike ultimately meet the same end. Beyond that, the idea of the musical or mentalistic necromancer is ill-supported outside of intentionally niche games like Crypt of the Necrodancer, and while we can agree that souls are important to necromancy, the mind is much more contentious, especially as the most common forms of raised undead are mindless. Vital essence, by contrast, should not be controversial as an essential component to necromancy, given how it's plastered across the Necromancer's entire flavor text.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Beyond that, the idea of the musical or mentalistic necromancer is ill-supported outside of intentionally niche games like Crypt of the Necrodancer, and while we can agree that souls are important to necromancy, the mind is much more contentious, especially as the most common forms of raised undead are mindless.
If this is tripping folks up, I do have an explanation (of sorts) of why mind wound up with so much undeath when it seems like a reach. Basically, in my personal evaluation, Mind wound up covering too many concepts. All the obvious mind/memory spells of course, but also most emotion effects seem to be mind (which surprised me, I thought they'd be "spirit" by virtue of being on divine and occult lists, but no arcane and occult had more), illusions, and anything shadow related.
I think it's by this last element that Mind wanders into undead and, in some ways, shows its opposition to vital essence. On Golarian, the energies of the void are accessed by the filter of the Netherworld, or the old shadow plane. So because Mind is the essence most closely linked to shadow magic, they wind up with easier access to void energy.
Note, I've never fully liked this, and I am not defending it now. Hell, I don't even know if my guess is correct. But it's the explanation I came up with after analyzing the various traditions way back when.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think...that they haven't fully made up their minds on that particular point. Or Occult could be either or both, depending on the need of the writer.
I imagine a primal necro would be throwing elemental skeletons at dudes
For me, it was "Death is a natural part of Life" flavoring that we see in many characters in literature and TV. The most recent one that comes to mind is Death in the MCU, who is presented as the green witch in the TV show she appears in.
Edit: as an aside, that comes up with surprising frequency in the text of this playtest class. I say surprising because if I were writing this class and coming at it to justify occult casting, this is not how I'd start off:
Death is as common as life, if not more so. Despite this, death and decay are considered subjects of the macabre, and those willing to dive headfirst into the fascinations they invoke are necromancers. These occult spellcasters seek the ever-changing borders of life and death, manipulating the energies—vitality and void—to suit their will.
I'd personally start by punching up occult's access to spirits and the restless undead, and maybe bring up the shadow pseudo-essence I mention in my previous post.
But if I was trying to justify twisting the primal tradition until it's arm broke, that is almost exactly what I would say to do it.
All of this discussion takes me back to the lack of clarity of intent and scope as delivered to the player-base, and the intent of the classes very much informs their design path.
Because we don’t know what theme the book these two classes are appearing in, we must accept them at face value. Here we have a Necromancer, who uses an Occult power source for their spells and summons undead thralls.
Due to carryovers from this edition and the previous edition, some folks are getting tripped up on the Occult list. “Surely the Necromancer should be Divine” they say. And have healing, as in former Necromancy lists.
Others wish for a broadening of “the concept”, so that we might have Primal or Arcane Necromancers.
However, as “the concept” hasn’t been fully explained, and we have the fairly tight flavor blurb at the beginning of the class becoming for some an ur-text, and for others merely a…flavor blurb, there is more disconnect in trying to work together to understand “the concept”.
If Paizo had introduced a truly new take on…let’s call them…Thrallmasters, who can call on thralls and who like Witches, Sorcerors and Summoners draw from a myriad of sources (neatly divided into four useful traditions) and who have a rich, story-driven introduction at the start of the playtest document that explains why they are an Int-based caster that summons thralls of a chosen tradition exists now in Golarion then…well, folks could still argue about “I think it should be Cha-based” etc….but the endless bickering about “well, actually-factually historically thrallmasters were in the original texts of the lost peoples of….” and “thrallmasters in popular culture have always been…” or even “before the Remaster, and in PF 1 (and 3.5 IIRC) thrallmasters had a definite…..” would be a lot…less.
Unfortunately, Paizo have decided to drag out a popular and spiky subject, and then subjected them to all the worst know it alls on the internetz. Us. Was the Necromancer chosen to be in this playtest because it actually fits the theme of the book it will appear in? Perhaps a stupid question, but I’d say, being generous…more than likely. And was the theme of a book that will contain the runesmith and the necromancer chosen because Paizo’s survery, marketing and feedback all points to said book being popular and drawing a certain 13.7% of the player base further in to the consumer pool? Possibly.
I guess I feel the playtest is like coming in at the end of the first movie in the remake of a trilogy you’ve seen already , and being asked to help write the next movie so that the third movie will be awesome.
Paizo have proved, occasionally, to be incredibly creative, and to mesh their narrative of Golarion with awesome mechanics. The Kineticist, though drawing perhaps on real world and popculture cultivators and benders became a standout class for Paizo, and the 280 page Ultimate Kineticist Compendium by Legendary Games proved the design space was compelling. I’m sure folks had a lot of arguments about the Kineticist…..but the point is that it was/is a great chassis for a class)
All water under the bridge. Just feels like a broader newer concept, with a strong, new theme and tight narrative concept that the player base can get behind for a book they understand will garner better results than a rehash of an old and much-beloved concept (necromancer) shoehorned into mechanics to fit the system (thralls) and given only one source of power (occult) which admittedly fits, is nowhere as interesting or as fulfilling as a new concept (thrallmaster) with mechanics that fit both the system and the theme (thralls) and a choice of spell-lists to suit the source (pick-a-list). All of which could definitely provide a necromantic option. Which isn’t to say the current Necromancer won’t be a good class, just a lot narrower than it could have been, and Golarion is likely poorer for it.
Well, that runesmith and necromancer containing book better be good!
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Or, more simply, how does the Necromancer, with Int-based casting and summoning of thralls, function with each spell-list? Is a Primal Necromancer broken in terms of mechanics?
Is an Arcane Necromancer broken in terms of mechanics?
Is a Divine Necromancer broken in terms of mechanics?
(Lets forget for the moment about the nomenclature of the thrall powers, bony barrages and necrotic bombs can be refalvoured….)
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Or, more simply, how does the Necromancer, with Int-based casting and summoning of thralls, function with each spell-list? Is a Primal Necromancer broken in terms of mechanics?
Is an Arcane Necromancer broken in terms of mechanics?
Is a Divine Necromancer broken in terms of mechanics?
(Lets forget for the moment about the nomenclature of the thrall powers, bony barrages and necrotic bombs can be refalvoured….)
I think those are the wrong questions to ask. I'd ask, 'would a pick a list Necromancer affect what abilities it gets' and from my perspective, it very well might. So then I'd go to 'what list best fits the theme'.
Just feels like a broader newer concept, with a strong, new theme and tight narrative concept that the player base can get behind for a book they understand will garner better results than a rehash of an old and much-beloved concept (necromancer) shoehorned into mechanics to fit the system (thralls) and given only one source of power (occult) which admittedly fits, is nowhere as interesting or as fulfilling as a new concept (thrallmaster) with mechanics that fit both the system and the theme (thralls) and a choice of spell-lists to suit the source (pick-a-list).
From my perspective, it'd be shoehorning to try make the class multi-tradition. Now other mechanics might be possible for the class, but they are likely ones that don't need playtesting. For instance, the class might have undead summoning or undead companion abilities [or even subclasses], but those aren't things that need playtesting.
However, as “the concept” hasn’t been fully explained, and we have the fairly tight flavor blurb at the beginning of the class becoming for some an ur-text, and for others merely a…flavor blurb, there is more disconnect in trying to work together to understand “the concept”.
I don't think we need a full scale "concept": we are clearly playtesting the thrall mechanic and seeing how that mechanic works with the basic class framework. There is a point where extra mechanics/background becomes a distraction from the data you want. For myself, I'm fine with the amount of info we go. If I had a complaint, it's that we have no word on things like how Mastery of Life and Death works.